The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selected Field Sites and Management
2.2. Soil Sample Collection and Analysis
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Soil Physical Properties
3.2. Soil Chemical and Biological Properties
3.3. Relationships between Soil Quality Parameters
4. Discussion
4.1. Soil Physical Properties
4.2. Earthworms
4.3. Soil Organic Matter and POXC
4.4. Soil Quality Indicators
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. EU Soil Strategy for 2030—Reaping the Benefits of Healthy Soils for People, Food, Nature and Climate. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM 699; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Wang, P.; McKenna, B.A.; Lombi, E. Soil and the Intensification of Agriculture for Global Food Security. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doran, J.W.; Parkin, T.B. Defining and Assessing Soil Quality. In Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment; Doran, J., Coleman, D., Bezdicek, D., Stewart, B., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 1–21. ISBN 9780891189305. [Google Scholar]
- Moebius-Clune, B.; van Es, H.; Schindelbeck, R.; Idowu, O.; Clune, D.; Thies, J. Evaluation of Laboratory-Measured Soil Properties As Indicators of Soil Physical Quality. Soil Sci. 2007, 172, 895–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drobnik, T.; Greiner, L.; Keller, A.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Soil Quality Indicators—From Soil Functions to Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fründ, H.-C.; Graefe, U.; Tischer, S. Earthworms as Bioindicators of Soil Quality. In Biology of Earthworms; Karaca, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 261–278. ISBN 978-3-642-14636-7. [Google Scholar]
- Bünemann, E.K.; Bongiorno, G.; Bai, Z.; Creamer, R.E.; de Deyn, G.; de Goede, R.; Fleskens, L.; Geissen, V.; Kuyper, T.W.; Mäder, P.; et al. Soil Quality—A Critical Review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 120, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creamer, R.E.; Barel, J.M.; Bongiorno, G.; Zwetsloot, M.J. The Life of Soils: Integrating the Who and How of Multifunctionality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 166, 108561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bongiorno, G.; Bünemann, E.K.; Oguejiofor, C.U.; Meier, J.; Gort, G.; Comans, R.; Mäder, P.; Brussaard, L.; de Goede, R. Sensitivity of Labile Carbon Fractions to Tillage and Organic Matter Management and Their Potential as Comprehensive Soil Quality Indicators across Pedoclimatic Conditions in Europe. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 99, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culman, S.W.; Snapp, S.S.; Freeman, M.A.; Schipanski, M.E.; Beniston, J.; Lal, R.; Drinkwater, L.E.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Glover, J.D.; Grandy, A.S.; et al. Permanganate Oxidizable Carbon Reflects a Processed Soil Fraction That Is Sensitive to Management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weil, R.; Stine, M.; Gruver, J.; Samson-Liebig, S. Estimating Active Carbon for Soil Quality Assessment: A Simplified Method for Laboratory and Field Use. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2003, 18, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No-Tillage and Soil Physical Environment. Geoderma 2018, 326, 164–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, K.J. Impact of Ploughless Soil Tillage on Yield and Soil Quality: A Scandinavian Review. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 53, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuber, S.M.; Villamil, M.B. Meta-Analysis Approach to Assess Effect of Tillage on Microbial Biomass and Enzyme Activities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 97, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, Z.; Caspari, T.; Gonzalez, M.R.; Batjes, N.H.; Mäder, P.; Bünemann, E.K.; de Goede, R.; Brussaard, L.; Xu, M.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; et al. Effects of Agricultural Management Practices on Soil Quality: A Review of Long-Term Experiments for Europe and China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 265, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogunovic, I.; Pereira, P.; Kisic, I.; Sajko, K.; Sraka, M. Tillage Management Impacts on Soil Compaction, Erosion and Crop Yield in Stagnosols (Croatia). Catena 2018, 160, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palm, C.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; DeClerck, F.; Gatere, L.; Grace, P. Conservation Agriculture and Ecosystem Services: An Overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsiafouli, M.A.; Thébault, E.; Sgardelis, S.P.; de Ruiter, P.C.; van der Putten, W.H.; Birkhofer, K.; Hemerik, L.; de Vries, F.T.; Bardgett, R.D.; Brady, M.V.; et al. Intensive Agriculture Reduces Soil Biodiversity across Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 973–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abdollahi, L.; Getahun, G.T.; Munkholm, L.J. Eleven Years’ Effect of Conservation Practices for Temperate Sandy Loams: I. Soil Physical Properties and Topsoil Carbon Content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017, 81, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schjønning, P.; Rasmussen, K.J. Long-Term Reduced Cultivation. I. Soil Strength and Stability. Soil Tillage Res. 1989, 15, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munkholm, L.J.; Schjønning, P.; Rasmussen, K.J.; Tanderup, K. Spatial and Temporal Effects of Direct Drilling on Soil Structure in the Seedling Environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 71, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nugis, E.; Velykis, A.; Satkus, A. Estimation of Soil Structure and Physical State in the Seedbed under Different Tillage and Environmental Conditions. Zemdirb. Agric. 2016, 103, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nugis, E.; Edesi, L.; Tamm, K.; Kadaja, J.; Karron, E.; Viil, P.; Ilumäe, E. Response of Soil Physical Properties and Dehydrogenase Activity to Contrasting Tillage Systems. Zemdirbyste 2016, 103, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamm, K.; Nugis, E.; Edesi, L.; Lauringson, E.; Talgre, L.; Viil, P.; Plakk, T.; Võsa, T.; Vettik, R.; Penu, P. Impact of Cultivation Method on the Soil Properties in Cereal Production. Agron. Res. 2016, 14, 280–289. [Google Scholar]
- Tamm, K.; Viil, P.; Vettik, R.; Võsa, T.; Kadaja, J.; Saue, T.; Edesi, L.; Sooväli, P.; Loorits, L.; Lauringson, E.; et al. Erinevate Viljelusmeetodite (Sh. Otsekülv) Rakendusteaduslik Kompleksuuring; Riikliku Programmi “Põllumajanduslikud Rakendusuuringud Ja Arendustegevus Aastatel 2009–2014” Project Report; Estonian Crop Research Institute, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Agricultural Research Centre: Saku, Estonia, 2015; pp. 1–128. [Google Scholar]
- Vahter, T.; Sepp, S.-K.; Astover, A.; Helm, A.; Kikas, T.; Liu, S.; Oja, J.; Öpik, M.; Penu, P.; Vasar, M.; et al. Landscapes, Management Practices and Their Interactions Shape Soil Fungal Diversity in Arable Fields—Evidence from a Nationwide Farmers’ Network. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 168, 108652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micheli, E.; Schád, P.; Spaargaren, O.; Dent, D.; Nachtergaele, F. World Reference Base for Soil Resources: 2006: A Framework for International Classification, Correlation and Communication. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; pp. 1–145. ISBN 92-5-105511-4. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 11277:2009; Soil Quality—Determination of Particle Size Distribution in Mineral Soil Material—Method by Sieving and Sedimentation. 2nd ed. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; pp. 1–34.
- Estonian Environment Agency. Meteorological Yearbook of Estonia 2016; Estonian Environment Agency: Tallinn, Estonia, 2017; pp. 1–168. ISSN 2382-8870. [Google Scholar]
- Estonian Environment Agency. Meteorological Yearbook of Estonia 2018; Estonian Environment Agency: Tallinn, Estonia, 2019; pp. 1–102. ISSN 2382-8870. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez de Cima, D.; Luik, A.; Reintam, E. Organic Farming and Cover Crops as an Alternative to Mineral Fertilizers to Improve Soil Physical Properties. Int. Agrophys. 2015, 29, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemper, W.D.; Rosenau, R.C. Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Klute, A., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986; pp. 425–442. ISBN 9780891188643. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, P. How Long before a Change in Soil Organic Carbon Can Be Detected? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 1878–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vorobyova, L.A. Chemical Analysis of Soils; Moscow University Press: Moscow, Russia, 1998; pp. 1–272. [Google Scholar]
- Sáez-Plaza, P.; Michałowski, T.; Navas, M.J.; Asuero, A.G.; Wybraniec, S. An Overview of the Kjeldahl Method of Nitrogen Determination. Part I. Early History, Chemistry of the Procedure, and Titrimetric Finish. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2013, 43, 178–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehlich, A. Mehlich 3 Soil Test Extractant: A Modification of Mehlich 2 Extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1984, 15, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; Debroy, S.; Sarkar, D.; Team, R.C. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 3.1–131. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Lenth, R.; Singmann, H.; Love, J.; Buerkner, P.; Herve, M. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 1.7.0. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Fox, J.; Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Pagliai, M.; Vignozzi, N.; Pellegrini, S. Soil Structure and the Effect of Management Practices. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 79, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K.; Doran, J.W. Aggregation and Soil Organic Matter Accumulation in Cultivated and Native Grassland Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1998, 62, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stenberg, M.; Stenberg, B.; Rydberg, T. Effects of Reduced Tillage and Liming on Microbial Activity and Soil Properties in a Weakly-Structured Soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000, 14, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.; Heikkinen, J.; Ketoja, E.; Nuutinen, V.; Palojärvi, A.; Sheehy, J.; Esala, M.; Mitra, S.; Alakukku, L.; Regina, K. Tillage and Crop Residue Management Methods Had Minor Effects on the Stock and Stabilization of Topsoil Carbon in a 30-Year Field Experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 518–519, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chenu, C.; le Bissonnais, Y.; Arrouays, D. Organic Matter Influence on Clay Wettability and Soil Aggregate Stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1479–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Clarke, L.E. The Effect of No-till Farming on the Soil Functions of Water Purification and Retention in North-Western Europe: A Literature Review. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 189, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kværnø, S.H.; Øygarden, L. The Influence of Freeze–Thaw Cycles and Soil Moisture on Aggregate Stability of Three Soils in Norway. Catena 2006, 67, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagesse, D.F. Freezing Cycle Effects on Water Stability of Soil Aggregates. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2013, 93, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truman, C.C.; Bradford, J.M.; Ferris, J.E. Antecedent Water Content and Rainfall Energy Influence on Soil Aggregate Breakdown. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 1385–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perfect, E.; Kay, B.D.; van Loon, W.K.P.; Sheard, R.W.; Pojasok, T. Rates of Change in Soil Structural Stability under Forages and Corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, W.D.; Drury, C.F.; Yang, X.M.; Fox, C.A.; Tan, C.S.; Zhang, T.Q. Land Management Effects on the Near-Surface Physical Quality of a Clay Loam Soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 316–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galdos, M.V.; Pires, L.F.; Cooper, H.V.; Calonego, J.C.; Rosolem, C.A.; Mooney, S.J. Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Zero-Tillage on the Macroporosity of Brazilian Soils Using X-Ray Computed Tomography. Geoderma 2019, 337, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, L.F.; Borges, J.A.R.; Rosa, J.A.; Cooper, M.; Heck, R.J.; Passoni, S.; Roque, W.L. Soil Structure Changes Induced by Tillage Systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mueller, L.; Kay, B.D.; Deen, B.; Hu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wolff, M.; Eulenstein, F.; Schindler, U. Visual Assessment of Soil Structure: Part II. Implications of Tillage, Rotation and Traffic on Sites in Canada, China and Germany. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romaneckas, K.; Šarauskis, E.; Avižienyte, D.; Buragiene, S.; Arney, D. The Main Physical Properties of Planosol in Maize (Zea Mays L.) Cultivation under Different Long-Term Reduced Tillage Practices in the Baltic Region. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 1309–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengough, A.; McKenzie, B.; Hallett, P.; Valentine, T. Root Elongation, Water Stress, and Mechanical Impedance: A Review of Limiting Stresses and Beneficial Root Tip Traits. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Zhang, Q. Trade-off between Soil PH, Bulk Density and Other Soil Physical Properties under Global No-Tillage Agriculture. Geoderma 2020, 361, 114099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munkholm, L.J.; Schjønning, P.; Jørgensen, M.H.; Thorup-Kristensen, K. Mitigation of Subsoil Recompaction by Light Traffic and On-Land Ploughing: II. Root and Yield Response. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 80, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reintam, E.; Trükmann, K.; Kuht, J.; Nugis, E.; Edesi, L.; Astover, A.; Noormets, M.; Kauer, K.; Krebstein, K.; Rannik, K. Soil Compaction Effects on Soil Bulk Density and Penetration Resistance and Growth of Spring Barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.). Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2009, 59, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlüter, S.; Großmann, C.; Diel, J.; Wu, G.-M.; Tischer, S.; Deubel, A.; Rücknagel, J. Long-Term Effects of Conventional and Reduced Tillage on Soil Structure, Soil Ecological and Soil Hydraulic Properties. Geoderma 2018, 332, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boström, U. Earthworm Populations (Lumbricidae) in Ploughed and Undisturbed Leys. Soil Tillage Res. 1995, 35, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clapperton, M.J. Tillage Practices, and Temperature and Moisture Interactions Affect Earthworm Populations and Species Composi. Pedobiologia 1999, 43, 658–665. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, C.A.; Bohlen, P.J. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, 3rd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1996; pp. 1–426. ISBN 0412561603. [Google Scholar]
- Nuutinen, V. Earthworm Community Response to Tillage and Residue Management on Different Soil Types in Southern Finland. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 23, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, G.; Emmerling, C. Impact of Five Different Tillage Systems on Soil Organic Carbon Content and the Density, Biomass, and Community Composition of Earthworms after a Ten Year Period. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.Y. An Overview of Some Tillage Impacts on Earthworm Population Abundance and Diversity—Implications for Functioning in Soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 57, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Liu, Y.; Tian, F.; Shi, Z. Legumes Functional Group Promotes Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Storage by Increasing Plant Diversity. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 1336–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roldán, A.; Salinas-García, J.R.; Alguacil, M.M.; Caravaca, F. Changes in Soil Enzyme Activity, Fertility, Aggregation and C Sequestration Mediated by Conservation Tillage Practices and Water Regime in a Maize Field. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2005, 30, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, I.; Chervet, A.; Weisskopf, P.; Sturny, W.G.; Etana, A.; Stettler, M.; Forkman, J.; Keller, T. Two Decades of No-till in the Oberacker Long-Term Field Experiment: Part I. Crop Yield, Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Distribution in the Soil Profile. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puget, P.; Lal, R. Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in a Mollisol in Central Ohio as Affected by Tillage and Land Use. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 80, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermle, S.; Anken, T.; Leifeld, J.; Weisskopf, P. The Effect of the Tillage System on Soil Organic Carbon Content under Moist, Cold-Temperate Conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 98, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, R.; Stamp, P.; Richner, W. Impact of Tillage on Root Systems of Winter Wheat. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1523–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stuedemann, J.A.; Schomberg, H.H.; Wilkinson, S.R. Soil Organic C and N Pools under Long-Term Pasture Management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulde, S.; Chung, H.; Amelung, W.; Chang, C.; Six, J. Soil Carbon Saturation Controls Labile and Stable Carbon Pool Dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderón, F.J.; Culman, S.; Six, J.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Schipanski, M.; Beniston, J.; Grandy, S.; Kong, A.Y.Y. Quantification of Soil Permanganate Oxidizable C (POXC) Using Infrared Spectroscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017, 81, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulleman, M.; Wills, S.; Creamer, R.; Dick, R.; Ferguson, R.; Hooper, D.; Williams, C.; Margenot, A.J. Soil Mass and Grind Size Used for Sample Homogenization Strongly Affect Permanganate-Oxidizable Carbon (POXC) Values, with Implications for Its Use as a National Soil Health Indicator. Geoderma 2021, 383, 114742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tisdall, J.M.; Oades, J.M. Organic Matter and Water-Stable Aggregates in Soils. J. Soil Sci. 1982, 33, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeves, D.W. The Role of Soil Organic Matter in Maintaining Soil Quality in Continuous Cropping Systems. Soil Tillage Res. 1997, 43, 131–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Field No. | Management Type | Clay, % (<0.002) | Silt, % (0.002–0.063) | Sand, % (>0.063) | Soil Texture (FAO) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Grassland | 15.3 | 26.3 | 58.4 | Sandy loam |
2 | Grassland | 11.2 | 30.0 | 58.8 | Sandy loam |
3 | No-tillage, cereals | 9.6 | 43.8 | 46.6 | Loam |
4 | No-tillage, cereals | 7.2 | 37.2 | 55.6 | Sandy loam-loam |
5 | Minimum tillage, cereals | 11.4 | 32.6 | 56.0 | Sandy loam |
6 | Minimum tillage, cereals | 11.2 | 23.4 | 65.4 | Sandy loam |
7 | Conventional tillage, cereals | 9.1 | 37.5 | 53.4 | Sandy loam-loam |
8 | Conventional tillage, cereals | 8.5 | 42.6 | 48.9 | Sandy loam |
Factors | WSA % | BD g cm−3 | MC % | WHC % | TP % | AFP % | k cm d−1 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Management type (T) | F | 8.83 | 1.74 | 10.64 | 4.88 | 3.8 | 1.58 | 3.44 |
p | 0.0000 | 0.1589 | 0.0000 | 0.0024 | 0.0112 | 0.1949 | 0.0172 | |
Layer (L) | F | 21.65 | 53.73 | 147.65 | 105.33 | 41.42 | 7.40 | 3.57 |
p | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0068 | 0.0595 | |
Year (Y) | F | 63.28 | 497.21 | 709.25 | 401.68 | 470.11 | 192.33 | 16.25 |
p | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | |
T × L | F | 2.97 | 12.05 | 19.26 | 20.66 | 10.51 | 0.18 | 0.22 |
p | 0.0335 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.9114 | 0.8849 | |
T × Y | F | 2.56 | 5.64 | 52.73 | 7.67 | 5.65 | 3.49 | 4.20 |
p | 0.0566 | 0.0009 | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | 0.0009 | 0.0159 | 0.0062 | |
L × Y | F | 0.54 | 11.29 | 62.39 | 19.93 | 7.58 | 1.46 | 11.47 |
p | 0.4642 | 0.0009 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0062 | 0.2277 | 0.0008 | |
T × L × Y | F | 6.35 | 3.00 | 6.27 | 4.15 | 3.05 | 2.26 | 1.00 |
p | 0.0004 | 0.0306 | 0.0004 | 0.0065 | 0.0288 | 0.0813 | 0.3945 |
2016 | 2018 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G | NT | MT | CT | G | NT | MT | CT | |
Layer 5–10 cm | ||||||||
WSA % | 54.6a ± 7.4 | 48.1Aab ± 4.9 | 53.10Aa ± 10.4 | 45.2Ab ± 5.9 | 51.2a ± 13.6 | 42.4Bab ± 5.1 | 36.7Bb ± 7.3 | 39.4Bb ± 5.5 |
BD g cm−3 | 1.44Aab ± 0.10 | 1.41Aa ± 0.10 | 1.48Ab ± 0.13 | 1.48Ab ± 0.06 | 1.09Ba ± 0.14 | 1.18Bb ± 0.10 | 1.16Bab ± 0.17 | 1.14Bab ± 0.09 |
MC % | 26.5Aa ± 3.3 | 33.2Ac ± 3.1 | 28.8Aab ± 3.3 | 29.5Ab ± 2.5 | 31.2Ba ± 10.3 | 21.2Bb ± 5.0 | 16.4Bc ± 7.0 | 13.3Bc ± 4.4 |
WHC % | 45.6Aa ± 2.9 | 48.5Ab ± 4.5 | 42.5Ac ± 4.6 | 42.9Aac ± 3.2 | 59.1Ba ± 7.2 | 55.7Bab ± 3.3 | 54.5Bb ± 5.0 | 53.6Bb ± 2.6 |
TP % | 44.2Aab ± 3.5 | 46.1Aa ± 3.5 | 42.9Ab ± 4.3 | 43.4Ab ± 2.4 | 57.8B ± 5.5 | 54.6B ± 4.0 | 55.2B ± 6.5 | 55.9B ± 3.5 |
AFP % | 22.3A ± 3.9 | 24.5A ± 3.9 | 23.1A ± 3.8 | 22.9A ± 2.7 | 35.7B ± 7.6 | 34.5B ± 6.1 | 36.6B ± 8.9 | 38.4B ± 5.1 |
k cm d−1 | 674.6A ± 1004.4 | 1718.9 ± 6686.4 | 1562.9 ± 3902.2 | 1460.7 ± 3685.7 | 1157.8A ± 1335.5 | 1492.6 ± 1112.7 | 1818.6 ± 980.7 | 1085.9 ± 731.0 |
Layer 25–30 cm | ||||||||
WSA % | 53.9Aa ± 6.1 | 40.2b ± 7.0 | 45.8ab ± 13.0 | 41.3Ab ± 6.2 | 33.5B ± 10.5 | 36.3 ± 6.1 | 40.5 ± 6.4 | 34.8B ± 6.0 |
BD g cm−3 | 1.55Aa ± 0.07 | 1.47Ab ± 0.09 | 1.50Aab ± 0.15 | 1.48Aab ± 0.06 | 1.39Ba ± 0.21 | 1.30Bab ± 0.10 | 1.18Bb ± 0.12 | 1.23Bbc ± 0.09 |
MC% | 22.9Aa ± 4.1 | 28.8Ab ± 3.0 | 28.7Ab ± 5.1 | 29.5Ab ± 2.5 | 13.0Ba ± 5.2 | 10.5Bab ± 3.2 | 11.3Bab ± 3.2 | 9.1Bb ± 3.2 |
WHC % | 41.1Aa ± 2.6 | 43.9Ab ± 2.8 | 42.3Aab ± 4.6 | 42.9Aab ± 3.2 | 44.7Ba ± 6.3 | 48.7Bb ± 2.7 | 53.2Bc ± 4.6 | 49.4Bb ± 4.5 |
TP % | 40.7Aa ± 2.7 | 44.2Ab ± 3.4 | 42.13Aab ± 5.4 | 43.4Aab ± 2.3 | 46.9Ba ± 8.1 | 50.7Bab ± 3.9 | 55.0Bc ± 4.4 | 52.8Bbc ± 3.6 |
AFP % | 22.2A ± 3.6 | 24.4A ± 4.3 | 22.5A ± 6.5 | 22.9A ± 2.7 | 29.5Ba ± 9.0 | 30.7Ba ± 5.9 | 36.3Bb ± 4.8 | 33.9Bab ± 5.4 |
k cm d−1 | 615.8 ± 721.3 | 1346.5 ± 3265.0 | 477.7A ± 704.3 | 1460.7 ± 3685.7 | 539.9a ± 803.4 | 395.0a ± 514.1 | 1518.9Bb ± 1194.0 | 512.9a ± 465.1 |
Depth, cm | Penetration Resistance, MPa | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016 | 2018 | |||||||
G | NT | MT | CT | G | NT | MT | CT | |
5 | 1.89Aa ± 0.69 | 1.21b ± 0.49 | 1.09Ab ± 0.47 | 1.05Ab ± 0.58 | 0.92Bab ± 0.83 | 1.19b ± 0.54 | 0.15Bc ± 0.14 | 0.70Ba ± 0.75 |
10 | 2.4Aa ± 0.71 | 1.50Ab ± 0.49 | 1.37Ab ± 0.49 | 1.25Ab ± 0.65 | 1.35Ba ± 0.92 | 1.72Ba ± 0.57 | 0.30Bb ± 0.35 | 1.07Bc ± 1.01 |
15 | 2.47Aa ± 0.65 | 1.99b ± 0.60 | 1.79Abc ± 0.67 | 1.53Ac ± 0.72 | 1.86Ba ± 0.79 | 1.87a ± 0.56 | 0.63Bb ± 0.71 | 1.28Bc ± 1.04 |
20 | 2.53Aa ± 0.65 | 2.19b ± 0.68 | 2.05Abc ± 0.62 | 1.74Ac ± 0.74 | 2.08Ba ± 0.7 | 2.23a ± 0.64 | 1.03Bb ± 0.77 | 1.59Bc ± 1.05 |
25 | 2.65Aa ± 0.63 | 2.31bc ± 0.83 | 2.47Aab ± 0.83 | 2.12Ac ± 0.77 | 2.25Ba ± 0.59 | 2.47a ± 0.72 | 1.53Bb ± 0.82 | 1.74Bb ± 1.1 |
30 | 2.81a ± 0.64 | 2.60ab ± 0.79 | 2.77Aab ± 0.77 | 2.42Ab ± 0.86 | 2.58a ± 0.70 | 2.63a ± 0.66 | 1.89Bb ± 0.79 | 2.35Ba ± 1.25 |
35 | 2.87 ± 0.69 | 2.84 ± 0.95 | 3.11A ± 1.03 | 2.84A ± 0.86 | 2.73a ± 0.77 | 2.64a ± 0.66 | 2.19Bb ± 0.74 | 2.88Ba ± 1.15 |
40 | 2.99 ± 0.83 | 2.98A ± 0.84 | 3.27A ± 1.13 | 3.23A ± 1.08 | 2.85a ± 0.76 | 2.64Ba ± 0.74 | 2.47Ba ± 0.89 | 3.38Bb ± 1.28 |
45 | 2.83a ± 0.73 | 3.10Aab ± 1.09 | 3.22ab ± 1.09 | 3.37Ab ± 1.13 | 3.03a ± 0.91 | 2.69Ba ± 0.84 | 2.57a ± 0.91 | 3.60Bb ± 1.24 |
50 | 2.86Aa ± 0.87 | 2.99Aa ± 1.24 | 3.28ab ± 1.06 | 3.57Ab ± 1.22 | 3.23Bab ± 1.01 | 2.87a ± 0.92 | 2.80Ba ± 0.83 | 3.69Bb ± 1.30 |
55 | 2.85Aa ± 0.52 | 3.02a ± 1.18 | 3.27ab ± 1.06 | 3.71b ± 1.30 | 3.37Bab ± 1.01 | 3.20a ± 1.24 | 2.94a ± 0.81 | 3.84b ± 1.67 |
60 | 2.80Aa ± 0.71 | 2.94Aa ± 1.05 | 3.05a ± 0.72 | 3.90b ± 1.28 | 3.64Ba ± 1.14 | 3.47Bab ± 1.30 | 2.96b ± 0.89 | 4.35c ± 1.85 |
TOC % | POXC mg g−1 | POXC % of TOC | Ntot % | C/N | pH | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layer 5–10 | |||||||
G | 1.92a ± 0.40 | 0.604a ± 0.098 | 3.3a ± 1 | 0.223a ± 0.04 | 8.6a ± 0.57 | 6.3ab ± 0.7 | |
NT | 1.20b ± 0.21 | 0.689b ± 0.006 | 5.9c ± 1.08 | 0.142b ± 0.04 | 8.6a ± 1.02 | 6.2a ± 0.4 | |
MT | 1.72a ± 0.44 | 0.661ab ± 0.03 | 4.0ab ± 0.80 | 0.205ab ± 0.09 | 8.7a ± 1.04 | 6.9b ± 0.32 | |
CT | 1.47ab ± 0.14 | 0.692b ± 0.009 | 4.8bc ± 0.40 | 0.136b ± 0.03 | 11.1b ± 2.01 | 6.6ab ± 0.2 | |
Layer 25–30 | |||||||
G | 1.18 ± 0.39 | 0.616 ± 0.083 | 5.9ab ± 2.76 | 0.14ab ± 0.03 | 8.1 ± 1.14 | 6.4 ± 0.7 | |
NT | 0.81 ± 0.19 | 0.676 ± 0.003 | 8.8a ± 2.32 | 0.09a ± 0.01 | 8.5 ± 1.23 | 6.6 ± 0.3 | |
MT | 1.45 ± 0.81 | 0.653 ± 0.033 | 5.3b ± 1.80 | 0.16b ± 0.08 | 9.2 ± 0.28 | 7.0 ± 0.2 | |
CT | 1.12 ± 0.22 | 0.680 ± 0.008 | 6.2ab ± 1.08 | 0.11ab ± 0.01 | 10.2 ± 2.32 | 6.7 ± 0.2 | |
Management treatment (T) | F | 6.54 | 6.46 | 8.33 | 7.08 | 6.70 | 5.10 |
p | 0.0011 | 0.0011 | 0.0002 | 0.0007 | 0.0009 | 0.0044 | |
Layer (L) | F | 21.57 | 0.15 | 18.08 | 14.45 | 0.33 | 2.24 |
p | 0.0000 | 0.7014 | 0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.5707 | 0.1426 | |
T × L | F | 0.70 | 0.18 | 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.29 |
p | 0.5572 | 0.9072 | 0.5194 | 0.5406 | 0.539 | 0.8325 |
WSA % | BD g cm−3 | MC % | WHC % | TP % | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016 | ||||||||||
BD g cm−3 | −0.28 | - | ||||||||
MC % | 0.01 | - | −0.53 | *** | ||||||
WHC % | 0.22 | - | −0.82 | *** | 0.71 | *** | ||||
TP % | 0.19 | - | −0.99 | *** | 0.53 | *** | 0.81 | *** | ||
AFP % | 0.13 | - | −0.78 | *** | 0.08 | - | 0.38 | * | 0.81 | *** |
k cm d−1 | −0.19 | - | 0.06 | - | 0.18 | - | 0.12 | - | −0.06 | - |
2018 | ||||||||||
BD g cm−3 | −0.55 | *** | ||||||||
MC % | 0.23 | - | −0.22 | - | ||||||
WHC% | 0.64 | *** | −0.82 | *** | 0.53 | *** | ||||
TP % | 0.53 | *** | −0.99 | *** | 0.19 | - | 0.81 | *** | ||
AFP % | 0.35 | * | −0.89 | *** | −0.09 | - | 0.53 | *** | 0.90 | *** |
k cm d−1 | 0.23 | - | −0.46 | * | 0.14 | - | 0.46 | * | 0.46 | * |
Soil Properties | WSA % | BD g cm−3 | MC % | WHC % | TP % | AFP % | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TOC % | 0.68 | *** | −0.47 | * | 0.20 | - | 0.37 | * | 0.36 | * | 0.16 | - | |
POXC per TOC, % | −0.58 | *** | 0.37 | * | −0.17 | - | −0.31 | * | −0.27 | - | −0.07 | - | |
Ntot % | 0.77 | *** | −0.51 | * | 0.16 | - | 0.40 | * | 0.40 | * | 0.23 | - | |
k mg kg−1 | −0.07 | - | −0.14 | - | 0.37 | * | 0.12 | - | 0.13 | - | −0.01 | - | |
Ca mg kg−1 | 0.37 | * | −0.09 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.14 | - | 0.01 | - | −0.12 | - | |
Mg mg kg−1 | 0.33 | * | −0.01 | - | −0.05 | - | 0.13 | - | −0.06 | - | −0.22 | - | |
Clay < 0.002 | 0.57 | ** | 0.08 | - | 0.01 | - | 0.06 | - | −0.18 | - | −0.37 | * | |
Silt 0.002–0.063 | −0.23 | - | −0.23 | - | 0.38 | * | 0.24 | - | 0.31 | * | 0.21 | - | |
Sand > 0.063 | 0.02 | - | 0.23 | - | −0.43 | * | −0.30 | * | −0.27 | - | −0.09 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sutri, M.; Shanskiy, M.; Ivask, M.; Reintam, E. The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2149. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122149
Sutri M, Shanskiy M, Ivask M, Reintam E. The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia. Agriculture. 2022; 12(12):2149. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122149
Chicago/Turabian StyleSutri, Merit, Merrit Shanskiy, Mari Ivask, and Endla Reintam. 2022. "The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia" Agriculture 12, no. 12: 2149. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122149